But there you go again! DON'T YOU SEE?!Stalin *WAS* a psycho! hello!?! Have you seen any psychological profile on him?

And, yes, I know your brain must hurt when you hear things like that about your "one and only", vozhd.

Comrade, lay of Ismail. I agree with you ideologically but attacking him does no good, especially when he hasn't fallen upon the "bourgeois lies" defense and he's only uploading works with which he himself disagrees but as a service to the community. And dude yes he's selecting his sources but he's much more open than others who shall remain unnamed.

Thank you very much for the upload Ismail. It is very interesting to me that you provide these materials, yet still hold to the Western anti-revisionist ML idea that capitalism was restored in the USSR. I suppose you don't find the arguments of Szymanski, Goldfield and Rothenberg convincing enough?

"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG

yet still hold to the Western anti-revisionist ML idea that capitalism was restored in the USSR.

This view of the USSR was upheld by the Chinese until Deng as well as the Albanians.

Quote:

I suppose you don't find the arguments of Szymanski, Goldfield and Rothenberg convincing enough?

Correct. For instance Szymanski and RCPUSA members presented their sides of the debate and exchanged retorts, which were collected in a two-volume work entitled The Soviet Union: Socialist or Social Imperialist?, both of which can be downloaded here: http://bannedthought.net/USSR/index.htm

But there you go again! DON'T YOU SEE?!Stalin *WAS* a psycho! hello!?! Have you seen any psychological profile on him?

Would this happen to be one of those diagnoses across a long distance, over a century of time, across different cultural contexts, without ever having met the "patient" or anyone who knew him, conducted by someone who has never studied psychology for a day in his life? Because psychological profiles like that are a dime a dozen for dictators (present and historical), business leaders, rock stars, etc. So many people willing to whore themselves out for a bit of media attention.

Would this happen to be one of those diagnoses across a long distance, over a century of time, across different cultural contexts, without ever having met the "patient" or anyone who knew him, conducted by someone who has never studied psychology for a day in his life? Because psychological profiles like that are a dime a dozen for dictators (present and historical), business leaders, rock stars, etc. So many people willing to whore themselves out for a bit of media attention.

It doesn't really help that his comrades, everyone with the exception of Molotov really, claiming that it was something wrong with him.. I mean, even Lenin claimed it was something wrong with him. How one can conclude that he was healthy, is well, irrational.. People working for him for decades won't just change their mind, and accuse their patron of being crazy without actually believing it.

It doesn't really help that his comrades, everyone with the exception of Molotov really, claiming that it was something wrong with him.. I mean, even Lenin claimed it was something wrong with him. How one can conclude that he was healthy, is well, irrational.. People working for him for decades won't just change their mind, and accuse their patron of being crazy without actually believing it.

FWIW Molotov claimed that Stalin "succumbed to sickly suspiciousness" in the last years of his life. That's a bit different from claiming he was a psychotic.

It doesn't really help that his comrades, everyone with the exception of Molotov really, claiming that it was something wrong with him.. I mean, even Lenin claimed it was something wrong with him. How one can conclude that he was healthy, is well, irrational.. People working for him for decades won't just change their mind, and accuse their patron of being crazy without actually believing it.

Well, I don't know what exactly people said. I know Lenin wrote that he was "too rude", but that's just a personality defect. I guess I just don't like this tendency to psychologise everything and everyone, as if you're either "normal", or Sheogorath has taken up a room in your head without asking your permission. It's an obsession of western society, and it's why our children are drugged up to the eyeballs. But I digress.

I'm honestly more interested in the political aspect, by what actually happened, rather than the idle gossip by people who are not qualified to make this kind of judgement. Then you have to wonder about the capabilities of the rest of the party if they allowed themselves to be led by some kind of psycho.

FWIW Molotov claimed that Stalin "succumbed to sickly suspiciousness" in the last years of his life. That's a bit different from claiming he was a psychotic.

So even Molotov called him crazy, well, should say a lot .. He probably added the adage "in the last years of his life" since Stalin was actually planning to kill the man...

Quote:

Well, I don't know what exactly people said. I know Lenin wrote that he was "too rude", but that's just a personality defect. I guess I just don't like this tendency to psychologise everything and everyone, as if you're either "normal", or Sheogorath has taken up a room in your head without asking your permission. It's an obsession of western society, and it's why our children are drugged up to the eyeballs. But I digress.

I'm honestly more interested in the political aspect, by what actually happened, rather than the idle gossip by people who are not qualified to make this kind of judgement. Then you have to wonder about the capabilities of the rest of the party if they allowed themselves to be led by some kind of psycho.

You can be mental, and be intelligent (look at Saddam Hussein, Jean-Bedel Bokassa or Adolf Hitler) . As Mikoyan noted, in the 1920s, he seemed intelligent and modest. However, the reason why he ended up controlling the party is actually very simple; he was a member of the Politburo, the Organziational Bureau (Orgburo) and the Secretariat (and was the only central level official to be that) and through his office as General Secretary he was responsible over the affairs of the Orgbuo and the Secretariat, which in turn were responsible for appointing officials throughout the country (including nominating Central Committee members at congresses). Its a reason why the key Stalin stalwarts first made their debut in national politics through either the Orgburo (Kaganovich) or the Secretariat (Molotov) .. Since Lenin failed to remove him, and the others failed to see the powers in his hands (because they believed Stalin to be dum; viewing him as a tool and not an adapt politician) they left him be. Really, Stalin's rise to power has an important moral lesson - never underestimate you're enemy, never. They did, they died ... Stalin then went on to destroy all traces of democracy within the party, introduced the planned economy and introduced a furhrer-principle within the party - these basics were cornerstones of party rule until Gorbachev singlehandedly destroyed them. People talk of Khrushchev's de-Stalinization, but Khrushchev never changed the basic institutions, the informal practices or the formal rules in Soviet political culture in which Stalin created - the Soviet Union was still Stalinist until Gorbachev's decision in 1988 to dramatically reform the Soviet political structure took place..